Breach Flashcards
What is the general standard for assessing breach?
The reasonable man (Nettleship v Weston)
Which test do the courts employ when assessing whether an expert has breached their duty?
The Bolam Test (Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee)
What is the standard in the Bolam test?
‘ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man exercising that particular skill.’
May some people attract a lower standard test for breach than the reasonable man test?
Yes, children (Mullins v Richards) are not required to meet the standard of the reasonable man.
In which case did the Court of Appeal suggest the test of the reasonable man should be based on the ‘act not the actor’?
Wilsher v Essex AHA
What standard was the defendant required to meet for undertaking an ear-piercing in the case of Philips v William Whiteley?
The standard of the reasonably competent jeweller, not the standard of the reasonably competent surgeon which is what the plaintiff argued.
What standard of care was expected of a DIY man in Wells v Cooper?
He was not expected to meet the standard of a reasonably competent carpenter.
Which case demonstrates that if the defendant takes on a task that he ought to know is beyond his capabilities, then that may be evidence of negligence?
Greaves & Co v Baynham Meikle & Partners
Do the courts allow for a defendant’s illness/disability in determining the standard of care?
It depends. In Roberts v Ramsbottom, the defendant was required to meet the standard of the reasonably competent driver when he suffered from a stroke. He was expected to stop driving when he noticed his skill deteriorate. In comparison in Mansfield v Weetabix Ltd the defendant suffered from a sudden hypoglycaemic attack and was unaware of his condition. He was expected to meet a lower standard.
What standard is expected of sportsmen playing their sport?
Provided he uses reasonable care to play by the rules he will not be liable to other players or spectators (Condon v Basi).
What is the level for breach in horseplay?
As long as the defendant is not highly careless or reckless, injury to the claimant may not result in breach by the defendant (Blake v Galloway).
If the defendant has followed standard practice may he avoid liability?
Generally, yes (Maynard v West Midlands Regional HA) unless the standard itself is negligent (Re Herald of Free Enterprise).
Which two cases demonstrate that the likelihood of the risk is a factor in determining the likelihood of breach?
In Bolton v Stone a cricket ball hit out of the ground but it had only occurred a few times in 30 years. In Pearson v Lightning a golf shot attempted by the defendant could foreseeably have caused injury.
What is the ‘state of the art’ defence?
A defendant cannot have taken steps to prevent harm that was unknown at the time (Roe v Ministry of Health).
What matters more, the risk of injury or the seriousness of the injury?
The seriousness of the injury (Paris v Stepney BC or Watson v British Boxing Board of Control Ltd).
